Member Info for Billy-Bunter

Look like news just landed - pretty comprehensive update from what I can tell. I'm just sitting down to wade my way through it....

Good evening Pekingduck,
Can you please see which broker or research analyst issued the note?
Thanks,
Bill

Best of luck with your investment, Heckler….!

B.

Which buy is yours, Heckler?

I picked up 9708 shares in a trade a short while ago.

Bill

Thank you SOG.

B.

Question: Does anyone know what the remaining patent life is for 737?

Thanks,

Bill

Like you, Vanilla, I did quite a bit of buying in the 20p-25p price range. My average is about 25p. As of now I’m holding about 1.5 million shares and am mulling over the purchase of an addition 200,000 or 300,000 shares.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I’m going to end up looking either very shrewd or very stupid….

Bill

Michael Bradfield Just bought 500,000 shares. That like £65k of shares, more than just a gesture. I wonder if Nicolas will be joining the other Directors and also make a purchase?

Bill.

Well I just bought another £10k of shares, but strangely it’s showing as a sell/…?!?

B.

He did mention the warrants….

Thanks, Kenj

AVO will need more funds in the new year, so we will all find out soon how this is going to play out.

Bill

Hey, Kenj
AVO raised £.5M earlier in December when the share price was only a little above where it is today. So, it clearly is the case that at least one party is prepared to fund a placing whilst the price is significantly below the 25p nominal value. Albeit, with some significant 25p warrants thrown in.
B.

Hey, I wasn’t complaining, Max

And, the Chairman buys shares…

Thank you, SOG

Appreciate your message. I think its Sierra/CPF agreement clause 15.1.19 that is conclusive on this:

*** 15.1.9 ProNAi hereby grants to CPF under the Arising Intellectual Property a perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid, sub-licensable, worldwide, non-exclusive licence to research, develop, make, have made, market, use and sell Licensed Products to the extent falling within the scope of the Arising Intellectual Property.***

Off now for a 2 hour cycle ride through the Surrey Hills.... Too much turkey and XMAS pudding.... I need to burn off the calories :-)

B.

SOG,

Respectfully, I think you need to be careful with this - its a bit jumbled.

"SO own the two patents which have been approved. They no longer have the license. They cannot therefore keep the patents to prevent development work whether on its own or in combination therapy, The CHK1 737 is developed and named in the patent protection. PARP, and WEE1 candidates are not named."

Sierra ARE at liberty to keep the new patents. There is noting I see in the agreement that forces their transfer. But, the agreement does explicitly provides the CPF a sub-licensable license to them. Its the presence of this automatic license that allows the CPF to do what they want.

Definitively, Sierra own the new combo patents/applications - the agreement does not force their transfer. But, a license is given to them.

And to reiterate, a scenario could be that Sierra simply abandons those patents in the future, which makes the situation moot all round.

Bill.

I hear what you say, Fanti

But, in defence of the CPF and Sareum, writing and agreeing agreements that cover ever possible eventuality, particularly in the area of new IP where its unknown what may come up in the future, can be a tricky business.

About 10 years ago my own business out licensed some technology we'd develop to a third party. We did have an improvements (new IP) clause but interestingly like the Sierra/CPF agreement, it didn't transfer any new patents back to my company upon termination. We simply got an automatic license to them.

B.

Interesting question, HBD

I'm coming down on the side of saying that any party buying the CPF (and Sareum) out of their interest in 737, would inherit what remains of the Sierra deal. Thus, they would inherit the license to the new IP and be able to use it.

'If', for some reason, there were problems with that being transacted as part of a sale of 737, there would be an alternative path. And, that would be for the CPF to sell 737 and then separately provide the buyer a perpetual sub-license to the new IP (2 combo patents), as an extension of the perpetual license to it that it has from Sierra.

So, whatever happens, I'm pretty confident that Sierra/GSK can't easily block use of the new IP.

That said, and as I said earlier, it would be nicer for the CPF if they own/control those combo patents, assuming that they do represent value. In that case and assuming that Sierra/GSK want to play ball, there are any number of methods for working out a deal. Along the lines of what you've eluded to, I think a royalty arrangement in that scenario is the most likely.

More turkey, anyone?

B.

Fearg,
Provided the two patents genuinely came about as a result of 737, then YES, Sareum would get a license to them.
And no, that isn’t ownership for Sareum. For example, at a basic level, Sierra would be free/at will to abandon the patent applications because it owns them, making any license to Sareum moot (because it’s doesn’t own the applications and so can’t ensure they are progressed)
B.

I read through the entire CPF/Sierra agreement this morning (twice). I can't find any additional information/clauses regarding transfer of new IP etc. from Sierra to the CPF. Thus my conclusions are unchanged. The situations appears to be:

1). Sierra/GSK will have to disclose all new IP that has arisen since the license agreement was signed to the CPF in January

2). The CPF will get a royalty free 'do whatever they want with it' perpetual license to this new IP

3). The agreement does not cover the automatic transfer of ownership of new IP (like the 2 patents HBD found) from Sierra to the CPF. CPF does get that automatic license to them, but transfer of their ownership to the CPF would/will need to be handled via a side agreement.

Bill.